Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
with president obama and john brennan. you can realize they're only going to be there for three more years. this is the way warfare is going to be. this is a weapon. this is a flexible, very useful, valuable weapon. >> what's wrong with sticking the judgment of people around obama and not trusting the judgment of the value of people around dick cheney? >> if you give the power to this president, then you can expect the next president to have similar powers. i commend everybody with the yugs of drones and attacking not american. >> what's the difference between an american drone attack and a seal attack? are there less collateral damage? >> if you read the new york times this morning, it talks about instances. >> so what do you do? >> if you come -- what do you do? ? >> well, perhaps, in some cases, you have to put more of your own blood at risk. >> you're sitting here. what would you do if you're a president or commander in chief or your general for example, and we send in 20 guys, we're going to lose five or ten. the drones for days above them. and they see them as signals and messages of
along with that. >> you can have the highest regard for the people in the white house. president obama, brennan. but you can realize they're only going to be there for three more years. we're setting precedence. this is the way warfare is going to be. this is the way counterterrorism is going to be. this is a weapon. they make the point that this is a flexible, very useful, valuable weapon that -- >> what's wrong with trusting the judgment of people around obama and not trusting the judgment or the values of people around saying dick cheney? >> you can't take it back. >> if you give the power to -- if you give the power to this president, then you expect the next president to have more powers. so you need something to frame. and i would say the case about the american citizens is very kind of an outliar. it's going to happen from time to time. that's not the core of this. i commend everybody to read the front page story of "the new york times" about the use of drones -- >> let's go the difference between a drone attack and a s.e.a.l. attack? what's the difference? a manned and unmanned
and president obama releasing some records is a positive first step. but there's going to be a president after president obama. and who knows how that leader will handle these serious matters. there must be consistency from one administration to the next. even though i trust president obama. if we set a president now, are we going to live with that if the next president is someone we don't agree with? no matter the politics, that's the question we should think about. policy should be around the precedent we set. no president should be able to go unchecked. i was opposed to it under bush. i'm opposed to it now. i'm afraid for the future. we must watch this carefully. i'm a.m. sharpton, thanks for watching. "hardball" starts right now. >> defending the drones, let's play "hardball" ♪ >>> good evening. i'm michael smerconish in for chris matthews. secrets and spies. the man who is at the center of the national debate over the targeted killing of americans overseas has been in the hot seat on capitol hill. among other things, john brennan coordinates the kill list, and so his confirmation hearin
of it. i hear often from radio listeners who sense a hypocrisy in that they see the obama administration being critical of harsh interrogation methods but going along with the drone program. is there some inherent hypocrisy in that? >> well, there was an interesting statistic in the first year of the obama administration. i think -- or perhaps over the first couple of years in the administration. he authorized more drone strikes and more people were killed in drone strikes that he authorized than the total number of people that had before passed through guantanamo bay. that crystallizes that hypocrisy people talk about. >> you could also argue that we know drone strikes work. you know, the jury still seems like it's out with regard to harsh interrogation methods, but drone strikes work. >> in terms of the morality, you know, if you determine that there are threats out there, there are bad guys that you need to take off the battlefield but you can't go there, you can't go to pakistan, you can't go to certain places, then what alternative do you have if you can't capture them? in other wor
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)